Limits on self-funded campaigns could impact mayoral race

Election spending can be a tricky business.

On one hand, it makes intuitive sense that the candidate who spends the most money during an election campaign has the best chance of reaching voters and therefore the best chance of winning. On the other hand, there are many instances when voters have turned away from wealthy candidates when they see what they perceive to be excessive or unfair spending.

For candidates with money to spend, avoiding the perception of buying an election has to be carefully managed.

For candidates without much money to spend, attacking an opponent with deep pockets can provide an effective advantage.

Peterborough’s municipal election is now only six months away. Candidates will begin to register in a few weeks and must soon begin thinking about how they will go about raising funds to run their campaigns.

This election, some of the rules affecting such fundraising have changed. I have already written in this space about the impact of the new prohibition on donations to candidates from corporations and unions. Another new rule limits how much money a candidate and his or her spouse can personally contribute to their own election campaign – a measure designed to take away the advantage of wealthy candidates who have, until now, been able to completely fund their own campaigns.

In each of the city’s five wards, candidates in the upcoming election can spend a total in the range of approximately $12,000 to $18,000 – an average of $14,668 – depending on the number of electors in each ward.

Of that amount, candidates can personally contribute approximately $7,000 to $8,000 of their own money. For the average candidate spending the full permissible amount, that means a maximum personal contribution of approximately 50 per cent. It also means that they will have to raise approximately 50 per cent – between $7,000 and 8,000 – from individual donors, which is a reasonable expectation.

Those limits remove the possibility of wealthy candidates self-funding their entire campaigns, and require that they rely in large part on contributions from individual donors.

This new rule may have its most significant effect on the race for mayor. Consider the 2014 mayoralty campaign of Daryl Bennett.

He was entitled to spend $55,842 and he spent almost that amount – $54,329 – all of which came from his own pocket.

There are those who praise such selffunding, arguing that it means that he is not beholden to any financial contributors either in perception or in fact. There are also those who view such self-funding as inherently unfair, in that it provides an advantage to the wealthy.

In this year’s election – should he run – he will still be entitled to spend about $56,000. The difference is that he will only be permitted to spend $18,847 of his own money.

That means that, if he wants to spend the same amount he did in the last election, he will have to raise an additional $35,482 from individual donors with a donor limit of $1,200 each.

How hard is that? Well, it would require 71 donors at $500 each, 142 donors at $250 each or 355 donors at $100 each.

That is not only an extremely challenging target, but it will require a whole new fundraising effort that was not required of him in 2014. There is a possibility that the full $56,000 will not be raised, which would represent an incentive to other mayoral contenders.

Of all the changes that level the financial playing field for candidates in the upcoming municipal election, this one may turn out to be the one that matters most.